Well-Known Member


In an underhanded maneuver, the California Legislature passed an alternative bill
(A.B. 1493) to regulate "greenhouse gases," including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
from motor vehicles. The bill now moves to Gov. Gray Davis for his approval. While
the new bill prohibits regulators from reducing speed limits, restricting vehicle
size or imposing new taxes or fees, it is little more than a back-door effort by
environmentalists to set fuel-economy standards -- an authority exclusively reserved
to the Federal Government. Because CO2 is given off whenever gasoline is burned,
the only way to cut emissions is to make vehicles that burn less gasoline or
vehicles driven by electricity or other means. Like the old A.B.1058, the new bill
still represents bad public policy. Accordingly, we need your help. Please contact
Gov. Davis immediately requesting that he oppose the bill. For details and contact
information, see or email the governor at <A HREF="

Additional Info ~~~~~
AB1493 – formerly AB 1058 (Pavley)

As you know, off road groups opposed AB 1058 (Pavley), which would have given the California Air Resources Board (CARB) unprecedented powers to tax and restrict automobiles, in California. (See previous alerts)

Most of the OHV community, as part of a larger coalition, opposed this bill, and as a result of an expensive radio and newspaper campaign, i.e. the Cal Worthington ads (thank God for other groups deep pockets), the bill was stopped dead in its tracks.

Never one to give up or play fair, the environmental extremists on Friday, June 28, jammed (this is also called “gut and amend”) similarly bad language into another Pavely bill, AB1493. That bill was voted out of the Senate on Saturday, June 29, on a vote of 23 ayes (all Democrats), to 16 noes (14 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

Hoping to get it through the Assembly before the general public found out what the Legislature was up to, the proponents got an unannounced hearing, with only one-hour notice, before the Assembly Transportation Committee, on Monday, July 1. I testified against the bill for my Off Road clients as well as sent out letters of opposition.

The Transportation Committee then voted AB1493 out of the Committee with a vote of 10 ayes, all Democrats, and 7 noes, all Republicans, with two Democrats abstaining. The environmental extremists then rushed the bill to the Assembly floor for a vote.

The bill was passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 41-30. The 41 ayes were all Democrats; the 30 noes were mostly Republican with some members (9) not voting at all. (Which is the same as a no vote.)

The entire purpose of this drill was to get the bill through before the opponents could redirect their campaign to the new bill number. This was done on the weekend in the Senate, and in just one day in the Assembly.

The bill now goes to the Governor’s desk. He has 12 working days to decide or sign or veto the bill.

<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>


- users no longer part of the rdc family -
E-mailed Gov. Davis....

<A target="_blank" HREF=></A>


Well-Known Member
Thanks Paige. I received that the other day and emailed my rep before it passed. I just emailed Davis too.


Well-Known Member
Been on this for weeks now. They hid the original bill that they could not get passed under a different number and snuck it through over the weekend. Its a bunch of BS and unless the Gov himself get's a whole-lotta heat it's as good as done!

Sean</font color=red>


Krittro Campbell

Forwarded it to about 100 or so people.

<A target="_blank" HREF=></A>
"Jesus loves you, everybody else thinks you're an A-hole"


Well-Known Member
This was voted right down party lines too!

<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>


Well-Known Member
The response...

Thank you for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to keep me informed of your opinions and the issues that are important to you. Your comments help keep me informed as we strive to make California a better place in which to work and live.

Your email has been directed to members of my staff who assist constituents and report ideas and concerns daily. If your concern is best handled by a specific department, your correspondence will be forwarded for action and response.

So that we can keep track of correspondence and ensure that we are able to respond to California residents, please be sure to include your name and address when you communicate with the Governor's Office or any state agency. Please note that we do NOT accept email attachments, so your correspondence should be included within the text of your email.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts. An informed and engaged citizenry is essential to the democratic process, and I appreciate your willingness to write me.


Governor Gray Davis

and here is Kehoe's email address (for those in San Diego) for sending her an email that tells her how unhappy we are about the sneaky tatics used in the middle of the night for this to pass. I hate sneaky people. If it is good for the "people" it should be done right out in front of the "people" and have the "peoples" support.

J.C. Andrews
Andrews Racing


Well-Known Member
davis claims he has no position on this bill at this time. the actual verbage is "we are looking into the meat of the bill to determine if it is good public policy..." what gets me, is that this was considerd "good public policy" by davis as 1058. so if it isn't now, what changed? and if this isn't indicative of how deceitful politicians can be for "their" gain, because the public does not support this, then i don't what we expect if we re-e;ect any of them. one of davis' spokes people( his policy guy) said that about 50% of the public supports this! what a crock of sacramenta feces!

i am afraid the only recourse for this crap will occur in november, when some wholesale changes can occur to repeal this legislative boondoggle!

If your gonna go, go BIG


Well-Known Member
Today Davis said that he IS in favor of the bill and will most likely sign it. He has 12 days to decide on it from the time it hits his desk, which should be next week sometime.

Sean</font color=red>


I would imagine that this bill is pretty draconian.

Can someone spell out exactly what it does/restrict? CA's smog laws are already the stiffest in the country. What's next?



Well-Known Member
Just emailed Grey Davis........Maybe a few emails from outta state might help..

Speed Safely


Well-Known Member
paul-what this bill does is give the state smog board more power to determine what is acceptable for new model vehicles in california. their goal is to reduce green house emmissions, even if they are something that occurs naturally through nature, such as CO2. there is no scientific means for reducing CO2 except to redice its production. this is something we all breath out when we exhale and something plants use to convert into oxygen while performing photosynthesis. it is natural and occurs from plenty of sources non-car related. some feel that CO2 is a big culprit in global warming, so they see a need to reduce its output. this bill makes it mandatory with the current boards recommendation to reduce CO2 emissions coming from the tail pipe. the only way to do that is to use less fuel, period. there are no catalytic converters, or other mechanisms that can do this. so cars will have to be smaller to use less fuel, period. they also want to penalize those who continue to use larger vehicles with a tax on large vehicles, the SUV tax. this will hopefully convince that we are bad and must change our ways and drive little cars. even minivans get taxed. last they want to reduse our gas consumption, so they want to impose a .02 cents per mile use taxe on the miles you drive. that is it in a nutshell.

If your gonna go, go BIG


Krittro Campbell
I think it is bogus that we should have to drive small cars....I like BIG cars. If I can afford to have them...I should get to enjoy them, hands down. I do not want my (in the future) wife and kids in a Geo so if they get in an accident they die. I want them in an Excursion (jsut an example) or a big-ass car or truck so that they are safe from harm. I think the democrats need to rethink some of these bills they vote for.

<A target="_blank" HREF=></A>
"Jesus loves you, everybody else thinks you're an A-hole"


Well-Known Member
no kidding. i wouldn't to even try to pull my trailer with mini truck.

drive fast and take chances!!



The environmental movement is "BIG BUSINESS" hiding behind a touchy-feely facade of non-profit organizations working for us all (don't you know). All the fat cat eco-nazis pull down huge salaries and incredible perks. The only way they can preserve this is to grow their base of sheeplike constituents whom will march in lock step behind their lies and decept They do this by manufacturing crisis.

The demoNrats are in the pocket of this Big, Eco-Nazi Business. They get huge campaign contributions and blanket endorsements from these shitheads. The common ethics (or lack thereof) of the demoNrats allow them to cozzy right up to the unlawful, lying, cheating scumbag eco-nazis without a second thought. If and when the demoNrats are elected, they return the first favor back by pushing through rediculous land grabs under the cover of confusion and collusion. And that's not enough, the same demoNrats then give huge goverment grants back to the Eco-Nazis. It's kind of a mony laundering scheme.

In basics.... It's not about the turtles, the snail darters or the milk-vech weed, it's about MONEY and POWER and nothing less.

Of course, any "druid like" demonRat will drop the ENRON Scandal as an example of GOP wrong doing. BZZZZTT! Not so fast. Another company that failed recently was Global Crossing, a telecomm company that was in the pockets of many of the more powerful demoNrats to include alGore. Just like the case fo ENRON, the rank and file employees of Global Crossing took it in the shorts, while the exec staff and their demoNrat friends like McCaulife, the chair of the DNC walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Of course, we don't hear too much about this on the censored news...

As it stands no demoNrat has ever come out in support for the off-road community. On the contrary, the strong majority of demoNrats unanimously create or suport legistlation that removes the rights of motorized recreationists on every opportuniy. This, no demoNrat druid can deny.

Make your choice....



Jerry Maguire
I know I'll take a lot of flack for this but here goes......No matter what position you take, enviro's, big business, government, off-road, whatever, the dividing factor between us all is oil. Plain and simple. The problem is that this country is way to dependent on oil, mostly foreign oil. This creates a huge problems for us. For example, why do you think that we support Isreal so we can have a foot in the middle east. If we weren't so dependent on oil from the middle east we wouldn't have so much at stake with regards to the outcome between the PLO and the Israilies (SP?)

However, this dependency on oil is not going to disappear with President like Bush and VP's like Cheney (Not picking on either of them just using them as an example) who have made their respective fortunes from oil. Further complicating the matter, the enormous oil corporations are way to powerful and spend millions lobbying to keep oil as the primary source for fuel, heat, products etc.

This brings me to the current bill pending Davis's signature. This bill is designed to force the car companies to start developing new sources of fuel. This bill is not designed to screw you and me! Since CA is the largest car market in the United States, and the 5th largest economy in the world, this bill is tring set the precedent that car companies need to start changing the products they produce. There is no arguing that the compustion engine is extremely outdated. I mean name another product that affects our lives as much as the automobile, but yet its design has not changed in over a hundred years? Once the car companies are forced to change, our dependency on oil will diminish as the need for oil will be reduced once cars don't need it anymore. If GM say that fuel cells are the engine we are going to use for the next hundred years, whose gonna argue with them, as they are one of the largest companies in the WORLD, employing millions of people worldwide.

This bill is not a bad thing designed to screw us who drive big cars. Trust me I care as much as you about big cars as my whole family drives SUV's and I drive an F-150 and I am going to continue to do so. This bill isn't even going to affect anybody or anything until the year 2009, leaving the car companies plenty of time to prepare for it.

Finally, don't who guys care about the environment. I mean if we trash the environment we won't even be able to go outside or even worse, be able to go to the desert because of things like getting skin cancer from the hole in the oazone (SP?) layer, or we won't be able to breath because of all the pollutents in the air. I know you don't see it affecting us now, but think about it in 30 years when you want to take your kids or your grand kids to the desert. Will you be able to? The answer lies in how we act now!

I hope you all don't hate me now!!!

See ya in the dirt!


<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

Finally, don't who guys care about the environment.


Jeeze... You bought the whole eco-nazi speel, hook line and sinker.

Dependancy on foriegn oil is a problem. Too bad the eco-kooks kept us from drilling in .1% of 1% of the ANR. Do the math.

Global Warming is a hoax! I call it "Global Lying" See below...

The Desert Tortoise and the Spotted Owl are surrogates to achive power, control and money for the eco-nazis. If they werw not, i.e. actually "threatened or endangered" I would have to kick the reptiles out of my yeard every year and the K-Mart sign that the owl's roost in in No Cal would not be a habitat anomolly

And yes, I care about the enviornment but, I sure don't let the eco-nazis tell me how to care. How about you?

If you would like to see clear argument and discussion on environmental issues I suggest that you join the LANDUSE mailing list at The link is <A target="_blank" HREF=></A>

For your immediate enjoyment I have included the following article.

Global lying | The
campaign to stampede the federal government into
drastic action to counter "global warming" has never
let honesty cramp its style. The most recent ploy
has been the release of a study from the
Environmental Protection Agency which concluded
that human actions were responsible for rising
temperatures and that government restrictions on
those actions were necessary to prevent various
disastrous scenarios from unfolding.

The problem is that all this hysteria was based on a
computer model which had been shown to be
incompatible with factual data. Patrick Michaels, a
professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia, had already exposed the
inability of that computer model to account for
existing temperature changes before its release to
the public was allowed to suggest that it was able to
predict future temperature changes.

This is by no means the first time that a supposedly
"scientific" report turned out to be a political report
wrapping itself in the mantle of science. Last year,
the National Academy of Sciences issued a report,
garnished with the names of numerous eminent
scientists, which was widely hailed in the media as
proving the dangers of global warming. The
problem with that particular report was that the
scientists whose names were put on display had not
written the report nor even seen it before it was

One of those eminent scientists, MIT professor
Richard S. Lindzen, publicly repudiated the
conclusions of the study on which his name had
been displayed. As Professor Lindzen, a
meteorologist, pointed out, "the climate is always
changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature
changes and many of these factors, such as the
changing amounts of heat put out by the sun during
different eras, are beyond the control of human

The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in
1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following
sentence was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests
a discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what
the scientists said.

What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental
cult and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and
other countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict
how our economy works and what kind of lives the average American could

Anything that allows them to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on
the rest of us gets a sympathetic hearing. Moral melodrama also has
great appeal to some. As Eric Hoffer said, "Intellectuals cannot operate at
room temperature."

Every record hot day is trumpeted in the media as showing global
warming. But record cold days are mentioned only as isolated
curiosities, if they are mentioned at all. Environmental cults have already stampeded

us into recycling programs that studies have shown to be
counterproductive -- except for appeasing shrill zealots and allowing
them to feel like they are saving the planet.

In the 1970s, the big scare was global cooling -- a "new ice age." And
of course drastic government action was needed to head it off. There has to
be moral melodrama.

The real question is not whether human beings have any effect on
temperature. The question is: How much? And how much can we change
the temperature -- and at what price? And what if we do nothing? What
will happen? And how dire will it be?

Professor Michaels estimates that most of the global warming over the
past century has been due to the sun's getting hotter. If we do
everything the Kyoto treaty calls for, it would not lower the average temperature
in the world by half a degree over the next 50 years. But it could wreck
some economies.

And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global
warming, such as a longer growing season, but we are not likely to see a
lot of those benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of
warming. Moreover, it is mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As
Professor Michaels points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to
minus 28 in January." Is anyone complaining -- other than professional
complainers and professional doomsayers?